Some truly depressing news: Three anti-choice abortion bills were signed into law today in Louisiana by Gov. Bobby Jindal Wednesday, one of which requires all women to have an ultrasound before being granted an abortion.
With Louisiana abortions already costing anywhere from $80 to $300, this extra cost could have heavy implications on women with low income as well as pregnant victims of rape and incest.
Here's an excerpt from an article from Ms. Magazine:
"The first law requires women seeking abortions in Louisiana to undergo an ultrasound prior to the procedure. There will be no exceptions for victims of rape or incest. Opponents remain concerned that the ultrasound requirement, an expensive procedure that may not be available at free clinics, will increase costs and make obtaining abortion services more difficult for women."
"The first law requires women seeking abortions in Louisiana to undergo an ultrasound prior to the procedure. There will be no exceptions for victims of rape or incest. Opponents remain concerned that the ultrasound requirement, an expensive procedure that may not be available at free clinics, will increase costs and make obtaining abortion services more difficult for women."
With all the problems the state is facing with the oil spill, the heavy cuts to the higher education budget and the creeping environmental concerns with the coastal erosion, why does Louisiana government believe it is important to focus its time energies on deciding what a woman can and cannot do with her body? This law has the potential to impair a woman's ability to financially access an abortion and interferes with a woman's right to her sexuality. Even rape and incest victims are targeted with this law. Although women can refuse to see the printout of the ultrasound, all women are required to undergo an ultrasound screening examination prior to abortion, regardless of their circumstances.
It will be interesting to see the reaction of Louisiana feminists. While supporters of the bill argue that these laws "empower" women through dissuading compulsive abortions. Is this really what female empowerment has come to? I think not. Empowerment cannot mean stripping women of reproductive liberty. Abortion is one way for a woman to exercise that right.
Check out this link to an article on the Ultrasound before Abortion Act (SB 528) run by the Times-Picayune, which has some more logistics. This article was printed last month, prior to Jindal signing the bills.
In June, Florida Governor Charlie Crist vetoed a bill that would have required most women seeking an abortion to view an ultrasound and listen to a doctor describe the fetus. Other states, such as Mississippi and Texas, have also been pursuing anti-abortion legislation. While Florida may have been a victory for proponents of pro-choice, Louisiana is a frustrating disappointment. It's almost unbelievable to witness in my state this breach of female reproductive rights. However, it could have been worse. According to NPR, the original legislation said the following:
"Anyone seeking an abortion [would be required] to listen to a detailed description of the fetus that included its dimensions and whether arms, legs or internal organs are visible. The woman also would have been required to get a photograph of the ultrasound."
In New Orleans and Baton Rouge, the state's two largest cities, the rate for forcible rape is 1.23 percent and 1.42 percent above the national average. The government better be prepared to deal with the victims of sex crimes in Louisiana, especially now that women victims desiring abortion will face these additional barriers.
Since the Supreme Court legalized abortion in Roe v. Wade, abortion has been hotly contested all over the U.S., and abortion laws vary by state. I can't help but wonder if we have truly progressed much since that decision. In wake of this new legislation, I hope another abortion case makes it to the supreme court. If Elena Kagan makes it to the bench, I wonder how this national issue will eventually pan out. For now, anti-abortion legislation stands as a present reminder of the fallbacks faced by women, their rights to both their bodies and sexuality, right now in Louisiana.
Yeah, another conformation that I 'm upset highly with the following: 1. The south. 2. This state. 3. Bobby Jindal. I've been pro-choice for a while. I have no problem with people who are pro-life, but the law isn't a person, it should not have an opinion. The FACT is that it's the woman's body, her zygote, her choice. Her only obstacle in reality should be how much the doctor want's to charge, that's it. I don't wanna post an essay on here so I'll talk to yah elsewhere more if you would like.
ReplyDeleteThe biggest problem I have with laws like this is that they serve only as a moral police. It isn't the law's place to dissuade a person from an action that some lawmaker deems immoral. The law should serve to protect the citizens, not tell them what they can and can't do with their bodies. I would go on a rant about how I think the Republican party is completely out of touch with impoverished Americans, but I don't want to taint your blog with a political argument =)
ReplyDeleteP.S. I really like your blog =D
I don't think these laws are meant to target any woman, rather they are targeting the lives of the unborn who stand to face imminent destruction. Secondly, women do indeed have reproductive liberty. By choosing to have sex, they are engaging in reproductive activity, by choice. Any resulting pregnancy is a product of that choice. Now, if you want to argue the minute percentage of abortions that take place in cases of rape and incest, it can be argued differently, but laws are made to serve the greatest good for the greatest number. Thirdly, the basis of the law is so that women can realize the reality of their impending action. There is so much fallacy among citizens about what the unborn fetus is or isn't, so that it is difficult for the average abortion-seeking woman to know the truth. By providing this information, the woman can see with her own eyes what the fetus is or isn't so that she can make something closer to an educated decision.
ReplyDeleteThe problem with that christian is that they ALREADY understand what is going to happen, a baby would devlop and thus be born. Reminding someone over and over and basically attempting to guilt trip them at THIER cost is rediculous. Especially considering it's the constituion that is imposing this.
ReplyDeleteI am so glad you posted this and brought it to our attention! I cannot believe a law like this was even passed. And the fact that our own are the ones passing it is so unfortunate. I have such a problem with these abortion laws being the center of attention all of the time. There are many other things that should be being discussed that are apart from taking control of what a woman can and cannot do away from them. I thought we were passed that. I absolutely agree with you when you say it is not fair to make women the target and not allow them to do what they want.
ReplyDeleteYou're awesome, Brianna. :)
@ Jye: Exactly. It's especially frustrating that incest and rape victims have to be subjected to this. Can you even imagine? What happens when a teenager is carrying her father's baby--she's an incest victim, potentially kicked out of the house, and most free clinics don't offer ultrasounds. You're right--It's not fair to the woman. It's her body.
ReplyDelete@ Robert: The cost is one of the red flags on this law. I agree with your thoughts on moral policing.
@ Christian: Thanks for your post, I was looking for alternative views and I respect your opinion. I had a question on your response. Are you arguing a woman's need to be "educated" on abortion (i.e. the fetus she's carrying) outweighs her right to her body? Her right to "choose sex" is not always the exclusive right to her reproductive life when you take away that liberty to choose what stays there after the sex act. Even in the "small percentage" of rape/incest? That doesn't sound like equality to me, nor does it seem like it's serving the interest of the public as a whole. No matter what way you twist this, this targets women.
To answer your question Brianna, when you look at this from the perspective of the lawmakers, they believe that it is a life, and in an attempt to save that life, they deem it acceptable to inconvenience the life of the mother so that she might realize the situation as they see it. In response to your comment about reproductive liberty, yes in this day and age, everyone knows how babies are made, and they make that choice to participate in the act, the majority that is when you exclude victims of rape and incest. That said, is ALL life not sacred? Yes you could argue that the zygote is not a human yet, but it is living tissue, it is human life, whether or not one would concede that it is a separate life. A crime of incest or rape is a pain that only a victim could truly know, and I completely sympathize with their situations, but one heinous act does not justify another one. An unborn life should not see such a fate only for the sins of its father. It can instead be looked at as some light in the darkness of the crime. I don't know your religious views, but if you are Christian, you could check out Exodus 1 :15-20, 21: 22-25, Psalm 139:13-14, Job 31:15, Psalm 51:5, Judges 13:7, and Luke 1:41.
ReplyDelete@ Jye: When it comes to 'guilt tripping' someone, you act as if this is a difficult choice, but by the testament of the pro-choice belief, the zygote is not a life and there is no crime in destroying it. So I ask you, what is the woman choosing between that makes this such a hard choice? Abortion or .....?
What hard choice? I'm not getting what you're saying.
ReplyDeleteI'm a Christian. However, it is so important for a woman to choose what is best for her life and the life inside her. If I was pregnant, whether I kept the baby or not would be a different story. What's at stake here is the fact that:
ReplyDelete1. Rape and Incest victims may only account for 1% of women choosing abortions, but who is to say what is or is not a good reason for a woman to have the right to choose an abortion? 21.3% simply can't afford and requiring a costly screening to show the fetus presence is not going to help the woman out of her financial rut. If anything, the damper on her reproductive health is making it more difficult to have control of her life.
2. A law is being passed in our state that is trying to come in between a woman's right to choose whether or not she wants to carry a child, whether it be unwanted or a surprise or literally forced upon her via sex crime. Sure, lawmakers are trying to take into account saving lives, but so many things are being neglected in our government, like the environmental struggles (bp, coastal erosion, poverty, etc.).
3. Making a woman "guilty" for her abortion (which is what it subtly looks like by requiring the ultrasounds) does not equate to empowering her to make the right decision for her body. It is a much more grave crime not to understand that this law can be used as a weapon to control a woman's ability to live the life of her choosing in the manner she desires, and that may mean choosing abortion. We're ignorant to assume that all laws are made in the best interest of women. It's important to remain skeptical and question why you believe what you believe.
...especially around southern lawmakers. When you look at Civil Rights and Women's Rights, we don't exactly have a brilliant track record of pro-equality.
ReplyDeleteLast thought for the most part... There is a oil mass turning into the size of a small island in the gulf right now that has already ended the oyster market. The oil is toxic and the dispersants are even MORE toxic. Higher education is taxing a major budget cut which will surely remove Louisiana's one tier 1 school from that status. Yet, time is still found to worry about smaller things like how many steps should it take a woman to have an abortion performed.
ReplyDeleteOne thing to take note of that makes this law a little better (but hardly), just for the sake of ensuring my information is correct, SB528 does require the Department of Health and Hospitals to provide a separate, "comprehensive" list of places women can receive a free ultrasound. Who knows how truly exhaustive or available this resource actually will be, especially now that this is that "extra step" abortion process like Jye mentioned.
ReplyDeleteAnyone who mistrusts media like I do should go here: http://www.legis.state.la.us/billdata/streamdocument.asp?did=718316
You can read all of SB528 as it exists in law. Forget CNN and definitely stay away from right wing Louisiana newspapers if you're looking for straight facts.
Since when has taking away someone's rights "empowered" them?!?! As if it weren't already hard enough for women to deal about their personal experiences of rape or incest! Yes, now you have to pay up for the ultrasound you can't afford as well of the price of what hearing/seeing the fetus does to you mentally.
ReplyDeleteAnd I love how they're trying to make these laws treat each woman the same way. There's obviously no difference between the girl who gets attacked and gang raped by strangers and the floozy snob girl in class who likes to sleep around with everyone and their moms. Yep, no difference at all. I hate the thought of a life lost at all, and couldn't imagine having to make that decision because I feel that all life is precious, but it boils down to our rights as women and being the owner of our own bodies.
So do these lawmakers think that going over to other countries and killing people in war is not as bad as abortion? A life is a life.
Who are the people that are making these laws?! Oh yeah, probably old fashioned men (and women as well) who can't even comprehend what it's like to push a watermelon out a hole the size of a marble. If they think it's right to tell a woman what to do with her uterus, then they should make a law about men not doing whatever the hell they want with their penises (i.e. impregnating the woman to begin with).
But anyways, if ultrasounds aren't free in the clinics, then many people won't be able to afford them, therefore they won't even bother going, which might lead them to make an unsafe decision by taking things into their own hands and doing some back alley procedure that endangers their own life as well.
And doesn't the constitution mention a little something about life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness?? Or did I miss the fine print that talks about no abortions?
And oh yeah, who cares about the oil engulfing our shores? Spending time on taking away the rights of women sounds like a much better way to pass the time.
The lack of compassion and understanding in this world baffles me sometimes...scratch that, ALL the time.
"Brianna Piche said...
ReplyDeleteI'm a Christian. However, it is so important for a woman to choose what is best for her life and the life inside her. If I was pregnant, whether I kept the baby or not would be a different story. What's at stake here is the fact that:"
-Since you are a Christian (I am too) we can both agree that killing an innocent life is wrong at any stage of life. God gave us the gift of life. He will certainly help people get through tough situations if they ask and pray to Him. It doesn't say anywhere in the Bible that its OK to kill an unborn baby if circumstances look bleak. God could change whats "best for you" at any point in your life, whether you see it at the time or not. I can almost guarantee that Jesus would not think abortions were right, just from reading scripture.
"1. Rape and Incest victims may only account for 1% of women choosing abortions, but who is to say what is or is not a good reason for a woman to have the right to choose an abortion? 21.3% simply can't afford and requiring a costly screening to show the fetus presence is not going to help the woman out of her financial rut. If anything, the damper on her reproductive health is making it more difficult to have control of her life."
- Whether or not enacting this law will help less abortions be done will be seen as time progresses. The fact that this could change even ONE mother's opinion would make it a successful law. One child saved > any amount of money
"2. A law is being passed in our state that is trying to come in between a woman's right to choose whether or not she wants to carry a child, whether it be unwanted or a surprise or literally forced upon her via sex crime. Sure, lawmakers are trying to take into account saving lives, but so many things are being neglected in our government, like the environmental struggles (bp, coastal erosion, poverty, etc.)."
- However bad the crime was, revenge (killing an unborn) is not the answer. The Bible tells us to turn the other cheek and do the right thing, however hard it may be. Even putting the child up for adoption would be a much better solution.
-Also with the argument, "the government has more important issues to deal with at the moment and they can't handle doing this too", I believe that to be false. I believe Jindal and crew have worked as hard as possible for the state of louisiana during this oil spill. BP stil hasn't even plugged the well yet. The oil spill has been horrible, but it has no doubt delayed the agenda of the louisiana government. Enacting this law does not necessarily mean they are working less on the oil spill. Passing the bill now if anything shows how important this issue is: the fact that they would pass this law even during an environmental crisis.
"3. Making a woman "guilty" for her abortion (which is what it subtly looks like by requiring the ultrasounds) does not equate to empowering her to make the right decision for her body. It is a much more grave crime not to understand that this law can be used as a weapon to control a woman's ability to live the life of her choosing in the manner she desires, and that may mean choosing abortion. We're ignorant to assume that all laws are made in the best interest of women. It's important to remain skeptical and question why you believe what you believe."
-The reason women feel guilty about abortion to some extent is because its wrong. I don't want to repeat myself again, but I talked about this in my first response.
-And I agree that No, not all laws are made in the best interest of women (or men for that matter). People are sinful and the world is not fair, thus there will always be unfair laws passed. But I do think this one is in good intentions.
- It is important to remain skeptical and question what you believe (to an extent!)...It's human nature to be skeptical about things, but you must eventually take a stance and stand up for what you believe.
Hi, Anonymous. Thanks for your comments.
ReplyDeleteIn my experience, Pro-life and Pro-choice can coexist. Of course, Christianity celebrates all life. God also gave women the right to their bodies, their choices, their lives. Instead of looking at abortion as the crime, I ask you for just a minute, think in terms of this: The greater crime is our government putting restraints on a woman's right to decide what is best for her life, and allowing her life to be governed by her pregnancy--regardless of the circumstances of the conception.
One child "saved" because a woman is too poor to pay for an ultrasound, or one child "saved" because her mother chooses, out of guilt, to bring her child into a world of abuse or neglect does not make this a successful law. Women victims of sex crimes are targeted by this law, and it's difficult to imagine their struggle to deal with their traumatic experience. Instead of getting their lives back on track and having the ability to terminate an unwanted pregnancy, something you are misunderstanding as "revenge," they are, under our law, being prevented from regaining their bodies. Where they were physically dominated by a man in the first place, their wombs are now being controlled by law. How is that freedom, when a woman's body is not hers to govern?
When I discussed remaining skeptical, this was the argument I'm applying to government and our lawmakers in particular, but since you brought it up, skepticism and constant questioning can lead to immense amounts of growth. Questioning does not mean you have to lose your moral compass along the way. I am standing up for what I believe in. Labeling oneself with Christian and aligning myself with the belief that a woman should have the right to an abortion (when she chooses and on the terms best suited to her body) may seem contradictory. But in my experience, Christ's message was of acceptance, of love, and of sharing that with people of our lives. When we get caught up in condemning abortion, we forget that issues like female equality are at stake. Our energies could be put to better use than applauding a law that's making abortions less accessible to women who believe it is in their best interest to choose that route.
Anonymous, you fail to realize the sole purpose of the law. The law should be blind to all religions. Enforcing the morality of your particular religion is the exact opposite of what any governing body should do.
ReplyDeleteConsider the fact that certain religions, such as Hinduism, do not condemn abortion. Should everyone who does not think the same as you be forced into your way of thinking? No.
How would it feel to be on the other side? Would you appreciate a law preventing the consumption of beef? In Hinduism, beef is outlawed, but it is ubiquitous in our culture.
I'm not telling you that you must have an abortion (or that your partner must have an abortion); to the contrary, you should make the decision based on your personal beliefs. Nobody is denying you that right. The point is that those who feel abortion is justified should be able to have the abortion if they so choose.
This law only serves to hinder the free choice of the would-be mother. She shouldn't have to abide by YOUR morality, only her own.
"Robert G. said...
ReplyDeleteAnonymous,"you fail to realize the sole purpose of the law.""
-Actually it's pretty clear that the purpose of this law is to make LA have less babies being killed (abortions) before they have the chance to live.
"The law should be blind to all religions. Enforcing the morality of your particular religion is the exact opposite of what any governing body should do."
-This isn't about religion, I was just pointing out that Christianity does not agree with abortions, because she said she was a Christian. I'm not "enforcing" anything.
-The fact of the matter is abortions kill people, therefore it is against the Constitution (No person shall be deprived the right of life, liberty, and property). So, its arguable that it's against the law in the first place. I think people also have the opinion that its bad to kill innocent people, and you don't have to be religious to agree with that.
"Consider the fact that certain religions, such as Hinduism, do not condemn abortion. Should everyone who does not think the same as you be forced into your way of thinking? No."
-First of all I looked it up and Hindus "generally tend to support abortion in cases where the mother's life is at risk or when the fetus has a life threatening developmental anomaly" (on wikipedia). They do NOT support abortion when there is a choice. Even if there is a religion that is pro-choice-and-death-of-babies, It needs not be followed, as it goes against the basic right of life we have in this country. Religious freedom is a liberty, Life is a right.
"How would it feel to be on the other side? Would you appreciate a law preventing the consumption of beef? In Hinduism, beef is outlawed, but it is ubiquitous in our culture."
- I would literally move to a different country, I like meat.
"I'm not telling you that you must have an abortion (or that your partner must have an abortion); to the contrary, you should make the decision based on your personal beliefs. Nobody is denying you that right. The point is that those who feel abortion is justified should be able to have the abortion if they so choose."
-You are denying the baby the chance to choose life. Think about when the baby grows up. You aren't apart of your mother right now, and it would be crazy if we passed a law that said our mothers could kill us anytime if they wanted to. It's the same way with the baby. It makes no difference whether the baby is unborn or old, it is a unique being that, although depends more on the mother for the moment, should have the same right of life as all of us do.
"Brianna Piche said...
ReplyDeleteHi, Anonymous. Thanks for your comments."
-No problem, i think it's important to hear both sides of the argument for the sake of understanding the issue.
"In my experience, Pro-life and Pro-choice can coexist. Of course, Christianity celebrates all life. God also gave women the right to their bodies, their choices, their lives."
-Agreed, Christianity does celebrate life. It is a gift from God.
-I don't recall any verse in the Bible that states God gives the right of women to choose if they want to kill their unborn child in their body. He does give people free will, but thats different.
"Instead of looking at abortion as the crime, I ask you for just a minute, think in terms of this: The greater crime is our government putting restraints on a woman's right to decide what is best for her life, and allowing her life to be governed by her pregnancy--regardless of the circumstances of the conception."
-If it was a comparison of which crime is worse, murder of an innocent child is probably at the top. You are interpreting the governments intent to "control women and their lives." It should not thought of this way at all. I don't think the government is that stupid.
"One child "saved" because a woman is too poor to pay for an ultrasound, or one child "saved" because her mother chooses, out of guilt, to bring her child into a world of abuse or neglect does not make this a successful law. "
-Imagine if you were a child that was almost aborted and this law made the difference and changed your mothers mind. I don't think you would be against it.
"Women victims of sex crimes are targeted by this law, and it's difficult to imagine their struggle to deal with their traumatic experience. Instead of getting their lives back on track and having the ability to terminate an unwanted pregnancy, something you are misunderstanding as "revenge," they are, under our law, being prevented from regaining their bodies. Where they were physically dominated by a man in the first place, their wombs are now being controlled by law. How is that freedom, when a woman's body is not hers to govern?"
-Rape is really bad...no doubt about that. How can you be sure the woman would just "get her life back on track" if she was raped and was pregnant? Even if you assume she does, it's not the child's fault that it was born from a rape. It should not be punished, as it is the most innocent thing in the whole scenario. It hasn't even been able to experience life yet, yet women are saying babies are "their body." It doesn't make much sense how women think that the baby is just some part of their body, and not a separate being.
"When we get caught up in condemning abortion, we forget that issues like female equality are at stake."
-I don't think this issue is even about the type of female equality you're referring to. This is about protecting life.
argh it looks like my other response to Brianna didn't go through or something
ReplyDeleteok nvm, its up now.
ReplyDeleteI personally am pro-choice. If it weren't for the mother the potential child would not exist to begin with. It is the mother's body.
ReplyDeleteI guess the main issue is is the fetus a separate life or not. I personally say no although I do understand the other side.
I am not christian and I don't believe any religious aspect of life should be put into government.
If you personally don't believe in abortion then don't do it. If abortion is completely freely legal then it is up to the individual to decide. Once these laws are in place it is no longer up to the individual and morals are being forced onto people.
I don't believe abortion is a good thing but I do believe it always needs to be an available option for health reasons and other reasons (rape incest etc).
I believe under the logic of abortion being "illegal" to be like saying a woman should attempt to get pregnant instead of having a period. All of the expelled eggs are also potential children and are living tissue. Why should those eggs be deprived of life? The only difference between a fertilized and unfertilized egg is that one is a small step closer to becoming a person.
That being said I dont believe abortion should be a form of birth control when some girl decided to be stupid. However, to make it illegal to women who are raped or are in a unique situation where they cannot support a child is not fair.
...just my opinions
"All of the expelled eggs are also potential children and are living tissue. Why should those eggs be deprived of life."
ReplyDelete...What about all that lost sperm?
"I dont believe abortion should be a form of birth control when some girl decided to be stupid."
You're assuming the female has full responsibility. But in reality, it takes two to tango.
All the anonymous', i can't keep up with which is which.
ReplyDeleteTo the whole morality debate, there are universal morals that exist outside of religion, as thier should. Ex: Murder is wrong. Child abuse is wrong. Rape is wrong.
The debate is turning into whether or abortion kills a person or a person to be.
To those who see abortion as murder, would you charge a woman who has a 1st trimester abortion with murder? The same as you would an armed robber who kills a store clerk?
wow, why did someone else post under anonymous right after me. Whoever posted at 11:52PM should've come up with a name or something different. lame
ReplyDeleteand to jye, theres no doubt the unborn child is still a person.
killing a child is just as bad (if not worse) as killing a store clerk.
not a child. an embryo/zygote. huge difference. This convo has gone off topic and is on the brink of stupidity.
ReplyDeleteSaying you don't think embryo's should be destroyed is one thing and understandable and respectable. Saying that a 1st or 2nd trimester zygote is equal in value or greater than an adult human being is mind boggling and borderline insane/ludacris.
But we were all in that form at one point in our lives.
ReplyDeleteIt's just a stage of life, why would it be worse to kill us now, just because we are older? It doesn't matter what trimester the child is in, it is still a developing person.
The fact is, with an abortion you are terminating that persons existence completely. I don't think that is right.
I have an idea. Why don't women use contraceptives? I know it's a foreign concept to the literacy challenged dummies of America, but hell it's worth a try.
ReplyDeleteYou crazy Christians by demonizing sex lead to more abortions and more teen pregnancy than if you were just open about it in the first place. Morons